$25 Billion Auto Bailout may mean some RWD projects will move forward at GM

[GeorgesBlazah]

Originally Posted by HoosierRon

I literally laughed out loud when I read this headline.

Don't move up production of the U.S. Cruze.

Don't move up (and increase) production of BAS+.

Don't build a U.S. factory for production of a competitive Aveo replacement/Beat.

Don't invest in R&D to make direct injection affordable for every single car you sell.

Don't make a fuel efficient minivan to compete with the Odyssey and Caravan.

Don't start making the 1.4L turbo any sooner.

Don't replace ancient Buick models with fresh, efficient models being sold everywhere else.

No, instead, take $25,000,000,000 from U.S. tax payers and announce a new RWD platform for the Australian Commodore. Brilliant.

My same thoughts exactly.

[texassierradude]

Originally Posted by mikesright

I don't think that Zeta is necessarily dead, per se. It's still a class-leading platform and will be viable for a decade or more. The tooling is already in place, the suppliers are in place, and the Camaro is going to anchor the entire line. Hopefully, as we get closer to the light at the end of the tunnel for the economy and as we get closer to the new fuel economy standards, GM will be able to more fully utilize the platform.

I am glad that GM is proceeding with Alpha, lord knows Ponitac and Cadillac need this to survive.

As well as Buick.

[Ming]

GM just needs to be careful that it invests the money in platforms, engines -- cars of the future. If they are seen squandering that money on SUV-like crossovers or large RWD cars, then they will find it difficult to ever come crying to the government for a loan again.

This is another lifeline to redesign their image into something closer to Honda's --- like Ford is trying to do. Sticking with the old "push the profitable big vehicles and suffer through selling the small cars" approach needs to die, die, die. Yes, even in the short term.

The Cruze and Volt should be a preview of what's to come, not 10% of GM's portfolio.

If that means rethinking what a family hauler is and reinventing the minivan, and making vehicles like the Opel Zafira, Nissan Elgrand or Toyota Alphard --- if it means making the Minivan more "mini" for better fuel economy with an improved use of interior space, then so be it.

Relying on Ridgeline-like Lambdas and other profit pigs by scaling back conservatively on vehicle size (exterior dimensions) is not going to cut it.

[Beau]

NO Hoosier, you have no idea what you're talking about.

We need huge push rod V8s in EVERY SINGLE CAR.

However, whatever we do, lets make sure we are satisfying the 75 people out there that want a... 6MT, RWD Grand Prix Like Sed. Oh wait they tried that with the GTO and over sold at 85 in total sales.

I don't know what GM should do anymore, I thought a RWD Pushrod V8 designed by GMI was the key to SUCCESS!

[andretti2008]

Originally Posted by HoosierRon

I literally laughed out loud when I read this headline.

Don't move up production of the U.S. Cruze.

Don't move up (and increase) production of BAS+.

Don't build a U.S. factory for production of a competitive Aveo replacement/Beat.

Don't invest in R&D to make direct injection affordable for every single car you sell.

Don't make a fuel efficient minivan to compete with the Odyssey and Caravan.

Don't start making the 1.4L turbo any sooner.

Don't replace ancient Buick models with fresh, efficient models being sold everywhere else.

No, instead, take $25,000,000,000 from U.S. tax payers and announce a new RWD platform for the Australian Commodore. Brilliant.

good thing this guys not rick wagoner.

[andretti2008]

Originally Posted by Beau

NO Hoosier, you have no idea what you're talking about.

We need huge push rod V8s in EVERY SINGLE CAR.

However, whatever we do, lets make sure we are satisfying the 75 people out there that want a... 6MT, RWD Grand Prix Like Sed. Oh wait they tried that with the GTO and over sold at 85 in total sales.

I don't know what GM should do anymore, I thought a RWD Pushrod V8 designed by GMI was the key to SUCCESS!

?????

[KingElvis]

Originally Posted by Xenon

And come to think of it, I really wonder how this is going to get approved by the Department of Energy. After all taxpayers don't want to see their money get wasted on what may seem like a "wasteful" product, when GM should be developing more fuel efficient vehicles at this time
(Hint: Drop a few diesel options and a low-consumption 4-banger in there to please those folks )

The loans are predicated on industrial re-tooling to make 'next generation' efficent tech.

It'd be pretty hard to tell Nancy Pelosi their 'green re-tooling' loans were employed so GM could make a kickass BMW 3 series fighter - but one that has a big OHV V8 engine.

But the larger point to be made is this:

You make money on large, prestige vehicles. If GM wants to continue, it will need to make money - ergo, it must sell profitable (large/powerful/luxury) vehicles.

People are losing their heads here. The evidence is that during recessions, the only segment that doesn't suffer is LUXURY cars. Back in 1975 - a real nadir for the economy, some of the very few vehicles that had improved sales were Cadillac, Lincoln and Chevy's Monte Carlo.

[D C]

Originally Posted by HoosierRon

I literally laughed out loud when I read this headline.

Don't get too worked up. Just remember that the "Headline" is just the opinion of some guy on the internet and should not be misconstrued as anything relating to reality.

[D C]

Originally Posted by KingElvis

The loans are predicated on industrial re-tooling to make 'next generation' efficent tech.

It'd be pretty hard to tell Nancy Pelosi their 'green re-tooling' loans were employed so GM could make a kickass BMW 3 series fighter - but one that has a big OHV V8 engine.

The $25 Billion question is:
Where is it easier to increase fuel economy by 25% as required in the disclaimers for the $$? Make a 20mpg vehicle get 25mpg, or make a 40mpg vehicle get 50mpg?

[Carguy]

Originally Posted by MonaroSS

Zeta is a great platform with a large future, just not for Commodore.

It is heavy for a unitary body (monocoque) design because it needs to be tough for Australian roads and conditions. People are forgetting the GMC Denali XT Concept. GM not only needs to make it's cars smaller, lighter and more economical, it has to do the same with trucks and SUV/CUV's.

While there is a role for FWD based CUV's, these will become smaller and lighter over time. But there will also be a role for a lighter but tough new generation of RWD based trucks and heavy duty SUV/CUV's. This is where GM will likely exploit Zeta now. But this will follow the more urgent small car programs and after GM stops bleeding red ink after 2010 or now 2011 if their cash burn allows.

My thoughts exactly!! ZETA crossovers is the answer here with a size flexible ALPHA taking over for the car models. I see two versions of the ALPHA with a strut suspended I4/V6 standard and duble A arm suspended V6/V8 premium packages. I fear the way this report reads that PONTIAC could be dead. I hope this is NOT TRUE!!

[WishIhadatruck]

Originally Posted by D C

The $25 Billion question is:
Where is it easier to increase fuel economy by 25% as required in the disclaimers for the $$? Make a 20mpg vehicle get 25mpg, or make a 40mpg vehicle get 50mpg?

I guess you'd at least need to HAVE a 40mpg car to make an improvement to one.

Originally Posted by KingElvis

The loans are predicated on industrial re-tooling to make 'next generation' efficent tech.

It'd be pretty hard to tell Nancy Pelosi their 'green re-tooling' loans were employed so GM could make a kickass BMW 3 series fighter - but one that has a big OHV V8 engine.

But the larger point to be made is this:

You make money on large, prestige vehicles. If GM wants to continue, it will need to make money - ergo, it must sell profitable (large/powerful/luxury) vehicles.

People are losing their heads here. The evidence is that during recessions, the only segment that doesn't suffer is LUXURY cars. Back in 1975 - a real nadir for the economy, some of the very few vehicles that had improved sales were Cadillac, Lincoln and Chevy's Monte Carlo.

Yes, bigger and more luxury oriented cars will always make more money. They need to make money on small cars too and they better be using the loans to do that. GM is a full line vehicle mfg., the largest in the world. They don't need to be a Honda, but their car lines need to have a Honda like reputation for quality and efficiency. Honda also makes money on their small cars. They don't need to neglect and forget their trucks and larger cars either. They DO need to improve ALL their products and obviously the most work needs to be done at the small/efficient end of the spectrum.

Perhaps this loan will allow them to push the advance of better, cheaper, efficient vehicles that people want without neglecting the rest of the market. We always bash GM for pulling one project ahead at the expense of others or ignoring certain segments too much such as pulling ahead the 900's at the expense of the Cruze or Camaro. Lets not expect them to flip flop and allow the 900's, DTS/STS, Lucerne, etc. become old and stale while they advance the Cruze, Volt, etc. All vehicles need to be class leading.

[nadepalma]

Originally Posted by HoosierRon

I literally laughed out loud when I read this headline.

Don't move up production of the U.S. Cruze.

Don't move up (and increase) production of BAS+.

Don't build a U.S. factory for production of a competitive Aveo replacement/Beat.

Don't invest in R&D to make direct injection affordable for every single car you sell.

Don't make a fuel efficient minivan to compete with the Odyssey and Caravan.

Don't start making the 1.4L turbo any sooner.

Don't replace ancient Buick models with fresh, efficient models being sold everywhere else.

No, instead, take $25,000,000,000 from U.S. tax payers and announce a new RWD platform for the Australian Commodore. Brilliant.

I applaud your passion HoosierRon, and I agree alot of what you spelled out here.

However, I just report what I hear - regardless of what I feel about it. But please remember, this isn't an "official annoucement" - its what we are hearing from credible sources.

Nevertheless, to play Devil's Advocate, I believe much of what you outline is also tied to incredible logistics over a protracted amount of time.

I agree that the Cruze should be bumped up, start spinning out the 1.4T sooner, get HCCI up and running quicker, etc -- but there are contractors, part suppliers, contracts, and other logistics that are all involved in that.

I dont know if GM can force the UAW to switch things over sooner in Lordstown, disrupt their parts agreements with suppliers to either slow down Cobalt parts-making or speed up Cruze parts-manufcaturing, etc. Same holds true for the the 1.4T -- is the facility its being built at up and running, does it have to spool down production of one engine that is needed for another product, etc.?

I'm not disagreeing with you, but it may not be as simple as we would hope. I too would want these other factors addressed sooner - but it may not be as easy as giving orders or flicking a switch when the huge machinery of GM's bureaucracy is already moving in another direction.

For all we know, it may actually end up costing them MORE to stop everything than just following the course they've already laid.

Conversely, since the $25 Billion was aimed at speeding up fuel-efficiency technologies for the Big 3 (or at least, that was what I thought it was intended for). This doesn't mean that a huge infusion of money will NOT go to those technologies, but only that they now have the cash needed to take on more projects and will give flexiblity to GM's R&D portfolio.

And since these other plans are much further out - 4 to 5 year time frame - they have a longer lead time to get the logistics sorted out.

Regardless of this Alpha news, I hope to soon hear that GM is taking equal measures to speed up the development of those other needed technologies for the long-term. Just as a new RWD platform is needed for some parts of the GM Empire, there is certainly enough financial, political, and percieved pressure from Main Street to get more fuel-efficient technology to market.

Just my two cents on it all.

[johnstarnes]

I wonder if down the road, could E-Flex be used to create potent yet high mileage rear drive cars by placing the power train in what we now call the trunk, and have the trunk up front as a light weight crumple zone?

[mbukukanyau]

Originally Posted by HoosierRon

I literally laughed out loud when I read this headline.

Don't move up production of the U.S. Cruze.

Don't move up (and increase) production of BAS+.

Don't build a U.S. factory for production of a competitive Aveo replacement/Beat.

Don't invest in R&D to make direct injection affordable for every single car you sell.

Don't make a fuel efficient minivan to compete with the Odyssey and Caravan.

Don't start making the 1.4L turbo any sooner.

Don't replace ancient Buick models with fresh, efficient models being sold everywhere else.

No, instead, take $25,000,000,000 from U.S. tax payers and announce a new RWD platform for the Australian Commodore. Brilliant.

did you see this?

[ogg vorbis]

there's a recession every 10 years...so we're right on schedule. gm cars just kept getting bigger and heavier (as well as everyone else's). gas has been climbing steadily - although did anyone see the price doubling in a few months? horsepower has been growing steadily. the u.s. should be ok next year...but did americans have the massive personal debt like in 1998? i've known personal debt runs 110% of net income on average...it seems orders of magnitude now. if you believe 'who killed the electric car' conspiracy theory, big oil will keep prices just low enough that people won't migrate to hybrids or ev for a long time to come.

yes there are many projects gm needs to advance, not only alpha. that's why they're getting 25 billion, not just one. although alpha seems to be slated to replace/supplement a dozen or so vehicles. small, mid, large, crossovers, sedans, coupes, sports cars. to say alpha is NOT important is ridiculous. just because a journalist picked a certain topic, doesn't mean gm isn't working on those other things, or making them priorities.